Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Jewish lobby/current professions

Should the current professions of cited authors be mentioned?

• Definition Section: This part of the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission of Australia about the "Jewish lobby" was inserted ONLY to bolster calling this the “descriptive” section. Now that it is called the definition section it is irrelevant and belongs in antisemitism section.

The assumption, however, that Jews have a disproportionate power and influence over decision making is what transforms a descriptive reality about politics to an antisemitic argument about Jewish power."

• Criticism Section: “Mitchell Bard, director of the non-profit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE), should also be described as a former editor of an American Israel Public Affairs Committee weekly newsletter to make clear his views or even biases.

• Criticism Section: These professors should be identified as such, which they are not now: Harvard University professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer

Carol Moore 03:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

We have links to their biographies, so there's no need for long descriptions of individuals, and in particular there's no need for poisoning the well. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then you must agree when I ask to delete the following description of Bard who is linked, right? Let’s be consistent! Mitchell Bard - delete - director of the non-profit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE) Carol Moore 04:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Sure, why not? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing short descriptions of cited authors is not the solution - we are not writing an encyclopedia for Jayjg, we are writing an encyclopedia for the average reader who may not know who Bard, Mearsheimer, Walt, etc. are. The descriptions of all of these authors should be in the article. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no problem with short descriptions, but, as I pointed out, there is a problem with long ones, which is what Carol was suggesting, as a means of poisoning the well. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I had two commonsense suggestions: Mention which Universities W&M teach at and mention that Bard used to work for AIPAC. The latter is hardly poisioning the well and is hardly irrelevant in an article where some call the Jewish Lobby AIPAC. In fact, I think we might investigate some of the other sources to see if they have too. Carol Moore 03:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

LOL! We should mention that 18 years ago he edited an AIPAC published newsletter, rather than listing the place he's worked for the last half-decade, or the 18 books he's written, or his Ph.D. in political science from UCLA? That's a good one, I actually did laugh out loud. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

People who used to work in organizations that are in line with their beliefs may still have ties, get financial and other support. Carol Moore 03:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

18 years ago??? Please stop filling this page with conspiratorial speculation. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jay that we have to be careful not to poison the well, and that this verges on it. On the other hand, it's rather strange in an article about the "Jewish lobby" not to mention a source's history with AIPAC. Jay asks why this would be any more relevant than more recent employment or his PhD from UCLA. Well, because this isn't an article about Jewish Virtual Library or UCLA.--G-Dett (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI this is a very low priority on my list right now, in mediation or in the article. It's something that would become relevant if, for example, it was found Bard or any source was still working closely with any major lobbying group, but their views were presented in such a way to make them look neutral. Same goes for people who use the phrase in critical, non-antisemitic way. It'd not an excuse to boot the quote, only to balance it with relevant info. It's an editorial judgment issue, like whether or not to use Cesarani quote. Carol Moore 19:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I agree poisoning is poor practice, but not including an easily definable link between Bard and 'the lobby' (part of which we are discussing) is like having the fox guarding the henhouse and not letting readers know. Yes, it is low priority at this point. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

When we move the Mitchell Bard article to Mitchell Bard (former AIPAC employee) let me know. Until then, I think it's probably better to abide by WP:NPOV, avoid poisoning the well, and refer to his current job, not where he worked 18 years ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Bard's work at AIPAC is listed in the second paragraph in his online bio at his current employer here, so it is clearly prominent in his experience. And it is relevant due to his writing about the "Jewish lobby" having worked at a "Jewish lobby". How about a compromise: keep the description you want for his current job, and add the relevant desccription of his work at AIPAC: describe him as "Mitchell Bard, director of the non-profit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise and former editor of AIPAC's Near East Report,". And of course keep the descriptions of the academics M&W. Jgui (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you consider AIPAC to be a "Jewish lobby", of course. In any event, "former editor" misrepresents, since "former" in this case means 18 years ago. No, I'm afraid poisoning the well is simply not on. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, it isn't me - we have numerous articles (including many in the Jerusalem Post) referring to AIPAC as the "Jewish lobby". It is clear that Bard doesn't consider it poisoning the well to refer to his history at AIPAC, in fact he seems rather proud of it based on the prominence given on his online biography that I cited here.

Jayjg, I just offered a compromise of including all of your preferred text, with the addition of text from his online biography, but you rejected it. So are you stating that the only text you will accept is the text exactly as you have written it, and you are completely unwilling to compromise? Jgui (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Jgui, when the only issue being debated here is whether or not to include the fact that he worked for AIPAC 18 years ago, it's rather disingenuous to claim that including that information is a "compromise". It's also disingenuous to claim that "Bard doesn't consider it poisoning the well to refer to his history at AIPAC" - Bard is not the one writing the article, nor is he the one trying to convince the reader to discount what he says by stating he worked for AIPAC. In addition, "All my preferred text" is, in fact, nothing, since I don't think we need to describe these people - that's what the blue links are for. Again, when we move the Mitchell Bard article to Mitchell Bard (former AIPAC employee) let me know. Until then, I think it's probably better to abide by WP:NPOV and avoid poisoning the well. And in response to your question, are you stating that the only text you will accept is the text that includes his job 18 years ago, and you are completely unwilling to compromise? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, there is no poisoning the well going on - we're putting his statements into the context of his experience - his experience at a "Jewish lobby" is clearly relevant when he is talking about "Jewish lobbies".

Jayjg, a compromise is when both parties get what they want. You get to include the accurate description of him that you have written, and we get to note the accurate fact that this author who is discussing "Jewish lobbies" is a former employee of a "Jewish lobby". In the spirit of compromise, I am willing to include whatever else you want to include to describe Bard. If you think it is important to note that he worked for AIPAC 15 (not 18) years ago, then by all means add that. Are you unwilling to accept this compromise? Jgui (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Describing someone based on work they did 18 years ago, because you think it will undermine the reader's view of their reliability and impartiality on a subject, is, of course, poisoning the well; please drop any pretense to the contrary. Wikipedia:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone states "We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation." And, given the fact that the only conflict here is about whether or not we should include reference to his 18 year earlier job at AIPAC, it's quite disingenuous to claim that including it is a "compromise". A description of Bard should say what he currently does, not what he did 18 years ago. In the spirit of compromise, though, I'm willing to remove any description of Bard at all. Are you unwilling to accept this compromise? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)

Jayjg, so let us get this straight. If there is any author on the page about Jewish lobbies who has ever worked for a Jewish lobby, then it is being suggested that we are not allowed to note this fact on the "Jewish lobby" page? We are only allowed to state his name?? By what reading of WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone does one arrive at this conclusion? And is this an argument for this extraordinary policy for every WP article - because that will cause major disruptions to every WP page so far written??? Jgui (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed that Mitchell Bard has his own article which mentions his editing work at AIPAC in the lead. It appears that he is linked in the Jewish lobby article as well; would a possible solution be to drop any qualification of him and let readers click him and decide for themselves? Shell ^babelfish 14:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with removing description of Bard, but Harvard University professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer should be described as such. Carol Moore 14:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Ok, can you explain why the article needs to include their job descriptions? Shell ^babelfish 15:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Shell, that was already stated above: Removing short descriptions of cited authors is not the solution - we are not writing an encyclopedia for some knowledgeable WP editor, we are writing an encyclopedia for the average reader who may not know who Bard, Mearsheimer, Walt, etc. are. The descriptions of all of these authors should be in this article, as they are in all well-written encyclopedia articles. Jgui (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, though short descriptions generally better. But sometimes longer ones necessary for their contribution to have a proper context. It's an editorial judgment. General principles should rule. The issue of using AIPAC on Bard is completely separate from this general issue.Carol Moore 18:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I agree, a short description should be fine. Bard is the Executive Director of the non-profit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE), and the director of the Jewish Virtual Library. Is that too long? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I side with Carol on this M&W question, because they have a book article. An encyclopedia usually encourages this kind of academic writing, over others. I believe this type of book tends toward RS; I believe they deserve professorial mention. For other sources, say Bard, I have problems with which professional/characterizing mention is used. Based on wiki-links, although similarly Ph and D’d, he is not a professor, he seems to be an activist. So what is he? Well, that, for me, is based on what Wiki says and what it doesn’t say. It says he is the honcho of redlinked [AICE], which is re-directed to JVL. But, if you look at JVL’s website, it says JVL is a division of AICE; that doesn’t help much. So, again what is he, his site is certainly a source for Wikipedia and a good one, (except politics and certain history, woops). But how good is his cite? I find the Wiki-link here much more enlightening. But we might need to check this [1]. A short, description should give readers a clue; 'professors' is good in the first, the second description must be longer, but briefer than current. I might accept a link to JVL only, if it had a criticism section. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Bard should only be described as director of the Jewish Virtual Library because there is a wiki article and because that will be more meaningful than AICE which is pretty meaningless for most readers, esp. since when you internet search it you end up in JVL as mentioned above. Carol Moore 12:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

• So tentatively, we can agree that a brief mention of the persons current occupation would help give context to their statements in the article? Shell ^babelfish 13:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

i agree, though I would add, or their most important or relevant last position or accomplishment. This would include "former President Carter", James Petras "author of The Power of Israel in the United States" but NOT former AIPAC employee Mitchell Bard unless we discovered he wrote an article on "the Jewish Lobby" published by AIPAC or he emphasized working for AIPAC in some speech he gave describing the "Jewish Lobby", etc. :-) Carol Moore 15:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Ok - so then, any objections to my wording plus Carol's clarification? Obviously, this isn't a hard and fast rule, so if special cases come up, editors can still discuss on the talk page, but would this work in general? Shell ^babelfish 16:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Shell, I'm sorry, but could you say exactly what the wording would be? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Essentially it would be that people mentioned by name (currently) in the article would get a brief description of their current profession to help indicate who they are; readers interested in more details can click on the links. If someone comes up that has a former position or accomplishment that is highly notable (President of a country) or highly relevant (i.e. someone's name is mentioned in an area about their book, they can be listed as the author) it may make sense to list that particular position or accomplishment instead of their current profession. Obviously, there's room for discussion on new people who get added to the article, but we can at least settle the current mentions. Shell ^babelfish 19:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Shell, I think that is a good start, but I do not think it is adequate. This is an article entitled "Jewish lobby". As such, it seems highly relevant to me to include information about authors who have worked for one of the "Jewish lobbies". Could you imagine a WP page on "Astronauts", that is not allowed to note that John Glenn (who most recently worked as a Senator), used to be an "Astronaut"? What would be the WP guideline supporting such a ruling? Jgui (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Everyone else seemed to agree that describing Bard's former position was unnecessary and could unduly weight his comments. Carol suggested, for example, that unless there was some source that showed Bard talked about the Jewish lobby or wrote an article on it in conjunction with his work at AIPAC, there wasn't a compelling reason to mention it. I also think that your assertion that AIPAC = Jewish lobby is a bit of original research; that may be what you feel about AIPAC, but that isn't necessarily an objective fact.

There's no particular policy that covers this in detail, but I would suggest reading Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial which touches on some of these issues. Sometimes its better to lead the reader to the field and let them wander where they will rather than trying to drag them down a certain path. Shell ^babelfish 19:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically in newest description of Bard Jgui added fact of Bard having edited a specific AIPAC publication. But obviously that was not acceptable to all parties. If some more recent tie to AIPAC came up, maybe then it would be more relevant. Carol Moore 12:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Shell, good to see you back. Actually I think Jayjg and Carol are the only ones who agreed that Bard's employment at AIPAC should be left out.

You questioned my assertion that "AIPAC = Jewish lobby" as potentially a bit of original research. In fact the article in its current version preferred by Jayjg has a cited portion of text in the "Definition" section: "The Jewish lobby ... is actually more than just a dozen organizations ... [including] of course AIPAC". And we have found numerous uses of the term in the Jerusalem Post where they describe AIPAC as one of the "Jewish lobbies" - for example "Jewish lobby ... organizations such as B'nai B'rith, the American Jewish Committee, and AIPAC"; "We didn't have AIPAC [the Jewish lobby in Washington]"; "Officials of AIPAC, the "Jewish lobby" in Washington"; "This time the Jewish lobby, AIPAC - without actually criticizing the President"; "well-edited newsletter of the Jewish lobby in Washington (AIPAC)"; PLUS MANY MORE my page here. And we have found Arthur Herzberg in his book "Jewish Polemics" stating: "The Jewish lobby, particularly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)" also here. Surely that is sufficient proof that this is not original research?

Thank you for the reference to the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial which I have read. I do not see anything in that guideline that recommends that an article about a group should not note when a cited author is a member of that group. In fact I think that my argument about the "Astronauts" article is an important anology here. If you disagree could you be more specific about what portion of that guideline you think is applicable here? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Shell, if I'm not stepping out of line here, perhaps at this point it would be helpful if you were to give an example of what you think a reasonable wording would be. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How about this - Jgui, if you don't believe the agreement above will work, what would you propose instead? Shell ^babelfish 04:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Shell, I have already outlined a couple of compromise proposals above which Jayjg summarily rejected. In contrast, Jayjg has offered no compromises other than removing all description of authors. So to reiterate: How about a compromise: keep the description Jayjg wrote with Bard's current job, and add the relevant description of his work at AIPAC: describe him as "Mitchell Bard, director of the non-profit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise and former editor of AIPAC's Near East Report". I then offered to Jayjg that: "If you think it is important to note that he worked for AIPAC 15 (not 18) years ago, then by all means add that." So do you consider this a valid proposal, or not? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Jgui, I could as accurately say that you have offered no compromises that do not include listing Bard's 15-18 year old job. We simply do not describe people on Wikipedia by things they did decades ago, and singling this specific job out is a violation of WP:NPOV and a classic example of poisoning the well. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, you are wrong - we DO describe people in Wikipedia articles by things they did years ago, when the things they did years ago are the subject of the article we are writing. And it isn't just WP that does this: all encyclopedias and journalists do this, as a bit of thought and Nagle's example below shows. Jgui (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Again I support both proposals above. Also just noticed CasualObserver's comments on Bard; his current pro-Israel activism more relevant. Why not describe Bard thusly Mitchell Bard, director of the pro-Israel organization American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE)... Carol Moore 13:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I don't have a strong position about this. We probably should follow journalistic practice for identification of op-ed writers. What does the AP Style Guide say? --John Nagle (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the AP style guide has to say or have any other thoughts on how to resolve this? Shell ^babelfish 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My copy is in storage. Anyone have one handy? For some good examples of the hard cases in occupational citations, see this New York Times story: [2]. This one is useful because it's about people whose notability is in the past. "Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary who was forced out in 2006 after three tumultuous years..." "Karl Rove, a principal target of many of Mr. McClellan’s charges and the former deputy chief of staff for President Bush, reacted immediately on Tuesday night. Speaking on Fox News, where he is now a commentator, Mr. Rove said...". The line "... leaking the identity of a C.I.A. operative, Valerie Wilson", is unusual because the context of the sentence is in the past, and so the occupational title is given as if current. --John Nagle (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have a copy of the Guide. But I would be willing to bet that the guide would state that citations of individuals should be consistent not only with their current jobs, but should also be relevant to the article that is being written. So in the example you gave, an article about McClellan and Rove in the White House notes their past working relationship with each other, and the titles they held at that time that they both worked in the White House. And an article about "Astronauts" notes whether the individuals who are quoted used to be astronauts, regardless of their current jobs. And an article about the "Jewish lobby" by extension should discuss those quoted authors who used to work for some component of the Jewish lobby. Which my proposed sentence: "Mitchell Bard, director of the non-profit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise and former editor of AIPAC's Near East Report" would achieve. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments have made me see that it is more relevant. Though it would be good to see who else worked for pro or con organizations and certainly opens the door for others to do that. Carol Moore 02:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Yeah, but the style guide doesn't suggest mentioning things they did 16 years ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, so what page of what style guide are you referring to, that says to never mention anything someone did more than fifteen years ago? And the point that you ignored, is that a style guide WOULD suggest mentioning things from 16 years ago, if the things that occurred 16 years ago are the subject of the article being written. Is that clear now - could you please respond to that point? Jgui (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was you who was "willing to bet that the guide would state that citations of individuals should be consistent not only with their current jobs, but should also be relevant to the article that is being written." Could you quote the guide on that? As for the subject of the article, it's the "Jewish lobby", not AIPAC's Near East Report, last I checked. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, you left out my statement that I didn't have a copy of the guidebook - but are you actually questioning that a citation should be relevant to the article that is being written? As for the subject of the article, it is the "Jewish lobby", and it has been shown that AIPAC is considered to be part of that Jewish lobby by many RS. Bard was a paid employee of the Jewish lobby AIPAC. If you want to mention AIPAC but leave out the Near East Report for some reason, then please suggest that change below. Jgui (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is this sort of thing is an editorial decisions editors must make together. If everyone else doesn't have a problem with it but one editor is committed to reverting it til the cows come home, then we should drop it in mediation and those who want it should bring it to another forum. We've gone back and forth on this one for at least 6 weeks. I don't think Jayjg's going to change his mind. There are other things on the list he might be - or already has been - more flexible on we should dispense with. IMHO :-) Carol Moore 16:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Can I get everyone to point out exactly what they think the wording of the sentence should be? And Jayjg, could you be more specific about why you feel giving the former employment will poison the well and what the style guide does say about how to handle these situations? Maybe its been a long time since I've used the guide, but I thought it gave how it should be worded, capitalized, spelled but not much when it should be used? Shell ^babelfish 23:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The intent of the inclusion is to have the sentence say, in effect, "Bard says the term Jewish lobby is inaccurate, but you can discount what he says, because he was employed by the Jewish lobby, so he would say that, wouldn't he?" Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, it is offensive to pretend to ascribe a nefarious "intent" to another editor, even if you then remove it two and a half hours later as you have just done HERE. All that the inclusion states is that the person making the statement used to be employed by AIPAC. The implication of that is left to the reader - his experience working at a Jewish lobby could just as easily imply a greater knowledge and therefore greater accuracy as it could imply a lesser accuracy - and it could equally imply no difference at all. My actual "intent" is to accurately state the facts, and nothing more. Jgui (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Shell, thank you for your request. I will repeat the text I suggested above. Please note that I am fully open to reasonable changes to this description - I am only opposed to deleting it entirely. Jgui (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So, you refuse to consider any description that does not refer to the job he held 16-18 years ago? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, I am tired of you deleting everything I add. Please do not do it again - that is all I am asking. If you think you can improve what I have written, then by all means do so - THAT is collaboration, and THAT is how WP is supposed to work. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed description:

• "Mitchell Bard, director of the non-profit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise and former editor of AIPAC's Near East Report"

Support, Jgui (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support if reads more accurate: "Mitchell Bard, director of the non-profit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise and a former editor of AIPAC's Near East Report newsletter." (Note: American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise redirects to JVL.) Carol Moore 14:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, I would be fine with your suggested changes (I don't think "a" and "newsletter" should be bold). Thank you, Jgui (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else want to jump in with further discussion? Shell ^babelfish 12:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If there are no more comments on this section then, I'm going to consider this closed and get us started on another issue. Shell ^babelfish 15:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not settled, because, of course, neither policy nor practice permits us to refer to his 16 year old job. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, am I understanding correctly that you will not accept any proposal that includes identifying his prior work for a lobby? Shell ^babelfish 02:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to describe Bard by his experience of up to 10 years ago; any more would be irrelevant at this point. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• It appears that we've reached a general stalemate on this issue. Since some feel that Bard's previous work for a lobby is important to mention and others feel that this experience is irrelevant and neither side seems that they will budge from their position, I don't think we're going to find a solution that everyone will be happy with. This might be a good candidate for further community discussion and getting some outside opinions. Unless there are any other comments on the issue, I'll be putting this section in an archive soon. Shell ^babelfish 02:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Shell, sorry but you seem to be rather over-generous with Jayjg in your statement. There are no "others" who feel Bard's experience is irrelevant - there is a single editor: Jayjg. His statement is that one's experience becomes irrelevant (and unmentionable) once it is ten years old. Shell, if you accept this as a reasonable statement, then would you also support removing all quotes from this article that are more than ten years old? Perhaps we should remove this whole article since the term "Jewish lobby" was first used far more than ten years ago? Shell, can I ask why you didn't ask Jayjg why ten years is a magic number? Why not five years? Why not twenty years? Shell, can I ask why you didn't ask Jayjg what WP policy his ten year limit is based on? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between being generous and refusing to single out one participant. The goal here is proposals that everyone can agree to, not for me to arbitrate content, so one person disagreeing still counts as disagreement for our purposes. I'm not here to attack editors POVs or to force everyone to follow strict interpretations of policy. If I had to ask what policy says 10 years, I'd have to ask what policy allows us to use their occupations at all. The answer to both is of course "no policy" - Wikipedia policy is non-specific in many areas for good reason and from there we have to use our common sense.

I don't accept anything here, you, the participants, decide what to accept. Remember, mediation is neither involuntary, nor is it binding. What I said was since we couldn't reach an agreement here, i.e. participants have chosen sides that do not have any common ground left, that other ways to resolve the dispute will have to be tried.

I am not here to argue for or against anyone's proposals, I am here to help along discussion, encourage participants to compromise, and help participants understand and value each other's opinions. I will make proposals when I think I see a way to resolve issues, I will encourage you to make proposals you think will resolve issues and I may even give my personal opinions when I believe it can help you understand a different point of view. I will not make a decision on who's right or wrong and I will not force people to justify their opinions.

I am noticing a lot of frustration here when mediation is unable to resolve a problem in the way you wanted to see it resolved. Mediation only works as much as the participants are willing to allow it to work; all of you need to be willing to work with everyone else here and find common ground for a solution. If you come into mediation thinking "us against them", its unlikely that much will get resolved. Mediation does require that you take a step back from your position, detach yourself a bit and maybe even write a little for the enemy. Shell ^babelfish 02:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Shell, I have not asked you to "attack editors POVs" or to "force everyone to follow strict interpretations". I am only asking you to apply the same standards to Jayjg that you have applied to me and other editors here. You say that you haven't asked me what policy applies to allow us to refer to occupations, but in fact you did do exactly that, not once but twice. You first asked me what WP policy allows us to use occupations at all HERE, and then you asked me to justify whether it wasn't Original Research HERE. And if you recall, I was happy to respond to your requests and answered your questions fully, quoting WP policy and precedent.

In contrast, you have allowed Jayjg to completely make up a pseudo-policy: namely that undisputed facts from RS older than ten years MUST be deleted from WP articles. This pseudo-policy is clearly unsupportable and clearly contrary to actual WP policies, and yet you have not asked him to justify that pseudo-policy at all. Could I ask why you have responded so differently?

Shell, frankly I am baffled by your last paragraph with your accusations of my "frustration" about not getting things "the way I wanted". Could you show me where I have been behaving in such a way that you think this lecture is justified? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I guess I'm getting something much different out of those diffs than you are. The first one, I'm asking why you feel the job titles should be included - that's part of trying to get everyone's point of view out there for discussion so you all understand what the other person is saying. I'm really not sure what you felt in that question meant you needed to quote a policy, because that certainly wasn't what I meant to say. As far as the second diff, I mentioned original research in regards to the AIPAC question only as a possible problem while summarizing the comments other editors had made, and pointed out an essay that might help make sense of their opinions. Again, there was nowhere in that statement I asked you to justify anything. I just want to make sure you understand that I do not judge who's right or wrong here, I'm not going to side one way or the other and I'm certainly not out to get you or make this hard on you.

Your response to me here is a good example of why I wrote that second paragraph. I'm not sure if you realize it, but when you don't like an outcome here, you start by attacking my ability to mediate, make claims that are not supported by the discussion, start using bold and caps - all of these come across as very aggressive when seen only in print and make it appear as if you are getting emotionally overcharged by the discussion here. If you read something on Wikipedia and it makes you angry or upset, take a few minutes to walk away and look at it again. Instead of looking at a statement and replying thinking "I can't believe they attacked me" try to look at it and think "I'm sure they didn't mean to attack me, what else could they have been trying to say" - if you can't think of a way the statement was meant nicely, try asking for clarification. When you only have things in print, you miss out on all the nuances of voice or body language that help clue you in to a person's real meaning - try to assume the best in another editor and you'll often find that you may have been taking their writing the wrong way at first. Shell ^babelfish 11:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

One other thing I forgot to mention, I did ask Jayjg if he was willing to consider any proposal that included Bard's work at AIPAC and his answer was no. Unless anyone else is willing to reconsider and not include Bard's work at AIPAC, we don't really have anywhere to go from there. Shell ^babelfish 11:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Shell, let me be clear here. As a participant in mediation, I expect to be treated fairly by you, and that means that I expect to be treated the same as you are treating Jayjg. I think this is a cornerstone of Mediation - that the mediator not play favorites. So when I see instances where you are treating participants very differently, I feel it is only fair that I should bring that to your attention and ask you to be more consistent.

I'm not sure how you could interpret your own comments as anything other than what they were - requests for me to justify my position - which I think is fully consistent with your role as mediator and which I was happy to do. The fact remains that you challenged me twice to justify my goal of including a short description of cited authors to the article, and yet you have failed to challenge Jayjg at all when he has attempted to justify his blocking material based on a policy that he has invented about not including information more than ten years old. Since you didn't answer my question before, I'll ask it again: why did you fail (and why are you continuing to fail) to question Jayjg on this pseudo-policy that he has invented? Surely you agree that it is your role as mediator to question participants when you see that they are misunderstanding and misapplying WP policy (just as you questioned me when you thought I was misunderstanding policy)?

As far as your "second paragraph", when you write of me that: "but when you don't like an outcome here, you start by attacking my ability to mediate, make claims that are not supported by the discussion, start using bold and caps ... which come across as very agressive ... and appear as if you are getting emotionally overcharged". Surely you can see that this is a serious charge against my behavior here? So let's consider these one at a time, shall we?

First, if you think it is indicative of being "very agressive" and "emotionally overcharged" to use "bold and caps", then can I ask why you didn't indicate this to Jayjg when he used "bold and caps" a total of six times in two sentences HERE, or when he used "bold and caps" a total of eleven times in this post HERE? Shell - why do you completely ignore it when Jayjg does the same thing - and when he does it first - but when I do it you accuse me of unbalanced behavior?

And as to your other claims, that I am "attacking your ability to mediate" and "making claims that are not supported by the discussion" - I have only one thing to say - WHERE? If you are going to accuse me of such flagrantly abusive behavior, then don't you think you owe it to me to show me where I have done this? Please cite examples so I can respond to it - OK? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Other opinions

It's definitely time to give up on this issue an let it be brought to other conflict resolution methods. Carol Moore 20:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}